Two friendlies lead Capello back to square one

May 30, 2010

It’s difficult to analyse England’s 2-1 win over Japan, simply because it’s not clear what Fabio Capello was trying to discover. Was this match purely an audition for individuals to stake their claim, or was he trying to find a cohesive shape?

Assessing individuals was certainly on his mind, since Tom Huddlestone and Darren Bent – two players in danger of going home – were given starting places. This was plainly not the line-up that will face the USA. Capello stated in his pre-match interview that he had decided 20 of 23 the players, with one defensive, one midfield and one attacking position still up for grabs.

In his post-game interview he declared that he had settled on his 23. Quite who he has decided upon taking, we won’t know for a few days yet, but in a way this is besides the point; the 8th-choice defender, for example, is unlikely to be making a huge impact in South Africa. Of more interest should be the first XI.

On that note, surely those back-up players should have been decided based upon their club form, or their training performance? These pre-World Cup friendlies against World Cup sides should have been used to help the team gel, but the games against Mexico and Japan hardly seem to have been used well in that respect.

The two formations

England’s best system is neither of the two used against Japan. The first-half shape (featuring two out-and-out wingers) doesn’t seem to suit the way England play. Taken in isolation, Aaron Lennon did reasonably well on the left-hand side; but then his natural width hindered the ability of Ashley Cole to get forward on the overlap. Playing both Lennon and Walcott barely offers a realistic goal threat from the flanks – the latter’s hattrick away in Croatia are the only goals either has scored for England, and they recorded just six Premiership goals between them this season.

Rooney, meanwhile, must be fielded either as a lone striker or alongside a ‘big man’ (ie Peter Crouch or Emile Heskey) if he is to play his best football. It seems slightly baffling that Capello has wasted three of the last six halves England have played trying Rooney and Defoe/Bent, considering (a) how well Rooney has played upfront for Manchester United on his own and (b) how well he has played with Heskey.

Capello may be looking for a plan B, of course, but then can you envisage a situation in the final 20 minutes of a game England are trailing in, where Heskey/Crouch is replaced with Defoe/Bent? It seems unlikely – when the opposition drop deep and defend solidly late on, the height and aerial threat of the ‘big man’ will be more valuable than the pace of Defoe (for it is surely he and not Bent that will get the nod) over the top.

England performed better in the second half. Partly a case of “Well, they couldn’t play any worse, could they?”, but also because they were playing purely technically-good players ahead of the defence, having withdrawn the ineffectual Bent, and Huddlestone – a fine player, but surely not one ready for international football. They had six players who could retain the ball, plus the bonus that Ashley Cole became involved in build-up play more; the left-winger was now Shaun Wright-Phillips – like Lennon, a natural winger, but one who drifted into the centre more and created space on the overlap.

In a low-tempo friendly, in a game where England were likely to see more possession anyway, and against a side that had gone 1-0 up and were happy to defend – the second-half line-up was probably right for the situation. Indeed, that may have been Capello’s objective at half-time – not to test out players, not to test out a particular formation, but to prevent what would have been an embarrassing, confidence-sapping defeat in the final game before South Africa.

Barry remains important for England

It’s difficult though, to imagine that those six would have worked well in a more evenly-balanced game where England were spending a greater amount of time on the back foot, looking to win the ball back.

Barry remains vital

Of course, so much depends upon the fitness of Gareth Barry. If he is fit, England’s system becomes a lot clearer. There seems to be an undue amount of attention being paid to whether Barry is fit for the USA game, partly because of comments from Fabio Capello himself. But if he is rated as 50:50 (or thereabouts) for England’s first game, surely he is near enough certain to be fit for later games, particularly in the knock-out stages?

England do not necessarily need to play a holding midfielder against the USA, Slovenia or Algeria, but the need for one will become more apparent in the knockout rounds, when Barry will be back. His fitness should not be judged upon his availability for the first game (although that is the latest he can be withdrawn from the squad) but upon his potential availability for the games against France/Spain/Holland/Brazil/Argentina, where he will be crucial to England’s system, a point well articulated by Terry Butcher.

Whether he is fit to face the USA is largely irrelevant; Lampard and Milner/Gerrard would be able to cope with the USA’s midfield, seeing as Bob Bradley looks like playing a fairly basic 4-4-2 with two solid central midfielders, rather than with someone who would generally be picked up by Barry (a player ‘in the hole’ or a midfield making runs from deep).

England’s best formation for the group games looks like being the one that served them so well through qualification. 4-4-2 with a ‘big man’ upfront, Gerrard cutting in from the left to combine with Rooney and allow Cole forward on the overlap, and a speedy right-winger on the opposite flank to stretch the play. The centre of midfield was a problem in this system against Mexico, but then that first half was without the calming influence of Frank Lampard – and none of England’s group opponents will cause such problems with movement.

Later on, a switch a 4-3-3 with Rooney upfront alone (as advocated by David Moyes in the Sunday Times today) may be the better option against top sides.

The most concerning thing is the fact that, without Barry, England will probably field a midfield against the USA that have never played together before; that is surely where these two friendlies were a missed opportunity.

75 Responses to “ Two friendlies lead Capello back to square one ”

The level of experimentation going on in a match immediately before a World Cup was hugely surprising. Personally, I like defensive midfielders who can tackle and Huddlestone echoes Carrick in largely being unable to do this. Hence, I was slightly disappointed not to have seen Scott Parker get a run in the absence of Barry and Hargreaves.

I have fond memories of Walcott’s hat-trick in Zagreb and although I sympathise with the Berkshire lad because Japan doubled up on him, he was less effective than Lennon or Wright-Phillips in Graz this afternoon. His place must be under threat.

Plus points came with the system tried for the first half hour of the second half. Gerrard looked better than he has done for some time and Joe Cole was lively behind Rooney. The ubiquitous 4-5-1 mutating to 4-3-3 most international line ups employ might suit England as a way forward now although Rooney still seems to enjoy dropping deep – he was forever picking the ball up near the half way line before the break. After it, he seemed to dislike teh restriction of having to play on the last man – with a couple of moments of petulance resulting.

At root, I think England look tough to beat and are a good defensive side – so, as you imply, Capello is probably torn between the kind of formation he’d like to field against the likes of Germany or France in the latter stages and the more attacking formation he’ll want to employ against teams England should, by rights, beat comfortably in the first round group.

I think you are right – but he himself clearly loves a big runaround, tackling back etc. – like an overgrown schoolboy – Capello needs to tell him to be disciplined and not waste too much energy on defensive duties. He is much more effective for England up top and may obviate the need for a big striker alongside him at all.

A brilliant analysis of the match by the way – and typical of asn astonishingly superb website.

“Pressure” and “Intensity.” Those are the only words that explain what Fabio Capello is experimenting and trying to instil.

Speaking for the Japan game, Lennon and Walcott’s inclusions were there to see if England can play with intensity with two quick wingers. Didn’t work and negatively affected their pressing game. The second half was typical England and that extra organisation and compactness allowed better pressing and tempo.

Stug on May 30, 2010 at 6:03 pm

I was rather bemused by the way in which Clive Tyldesley kept emphasising England’s supposed shift to a new and unfamiliar formation in the 2nd half. The number of times he claimed that England were trying something different from the usual variation on 4-4-2 was rather surprising, and indeed annoying.

As far as I could see, the basic shape was not so dis-similar from that used in the first half; Carragher came in for Johnson, a more conservative switch but playing the same position. Gerrard & Lampard occupied the middle (granted there is no holding player, but we were 1-0 down, and its a friendly), and we kept with two wingers out wide. Rooney took what was Bent’s role in the first half as the foremost striker, with Joe Cole playing off him, in a similar manner to Rooney playing off Bent in the first half.

The way ITV were reacting it was if we had gone with 3 at the back something equally as radical/unusual. I think they totally misread the situation. Plus the continued speculation throughout the game re. who would play left side against the USA seems completely redundant; surely it will be Gerrard, regardless of who played there today. Talking of which, I was dissapointed that Johnson did not get a chance, it seems as if he will not be taking part in South Africa after all.

Roberticus on May 30, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Stug, I think you’ve hit on how that this shape in the second-half represents Cappello’s wildcard solution; for when England are chasing a lead.

ZM, I support your call for Capello to go back to his lopsided 4-4-2, but also to have a back-up system, preferably a 4-3-3. Whatever about the back four, it is the configuration of the other six that concerns me.

So with the plan A; Gerrard combining with Rooney; Ashley Cole overlapping and Lennon streching the play over on the right.

Plan B: 4-3-3: this constitutes England’s best chance to play a possession game, with Gerrrard, Lampard, Cole and Rooney all linking up – and with only one holding midfielder (but must be an overtly defensive one) to compensate for Lampard playing with slightly more freedom. Gerrard and Lampard can switch laterally. Joe Cole to play even higher up and closer to goal that Gerrard does in the Plan A, but also cutting inside and allowing Ashley Cole to overlap. Rooney to play as a No.9. Also, Lennon would be pushed up to play as outside-fw instead of being a tornante. He and Glen Johnson would have to alternate who goes outside and who cuts in when approaching the final third.

I pretty much agree with this, although I might be inclined to start Gerrard in place of Joe Cole in a narrow left-sided role for plan B (might not be popular but against our potential opponents when it gets serious – Spain and Brazil – we will need someone capable of defending against Ramos and Maicon and Joe Cole isn’t great at doing that) with Milner or even Carrick (oh yes) coming into the centre.

Roberticus on May 30, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Do you mean that in your Plan B, it would be much more of a 4-1-4-1 (blending with 4-3-2-1)?

I suppose it would be safer and more conservative, but to me it suggests that Capello in choosing this would be holding back for the counter-attack.

Also, it is true that Gerrard is more demonstratively defensive than JOe Cole, but Cole is no slacker: he really learned the lessons from Mourinho’s tenure at Chelsea. Check out videos of him dilligently pressing the full-back to suffocate the opposition defenders’ carrying out of the ball, or even in big Champion’s League games when he would track his runner all the way back to Chelsea’s half.

Stug on May 30, 2010 at 7:07 pm

I’n noticing there’s little love for Heskey here (in plan A anyway), Crouch is favoured. Heskey retains the ball better than Crouch, when he plays we seem to be able to play the quick ball out of defence without it coming straight back.

Whilst I acknowledge his lack of goalscoring threat, Heskey could be especially useful in games against teams such as Spain or Brazil in which we will, all in probability, be under pressure and the other side will dominate possession. Heskey will give us respite and help build attacks further up the pitch. Crouch, despite his height and admirable technique, does not do that.

Roberticus on May 30, 2010 at 7:18 pm

Stug, when it comes to Plan A (a target man accompanying Rooney)I would rather have Crouch simply because of his greater technical ability.

Guardiola has expressed admiration for Crouch before, placing him in that category of No.9s who are more like basketball pivots: Guardiola mentioned Kluivert, Ibrahimovic, Adebayor and Crouch (I’ll leave it to yourself to rank them in terms of actual quality!), so it is surely indicative of the Tottenham player’s relative merits.

Yes, I suppose it would be more of a 4-1-4-1, albeit with Gerrard coming in off the flank. Cole’s not bad defensively as such – he’s certainly a hard worker but I don’t think he’s the best positionally. He can do a good defensive job against 95% of players in the world but let’s remember he’ll probably be up against Ramos and Maicon, two players you HAVE to stop.

I don’t think it would mean playing on the counter-attack too much, but there would be an onus on England’s midfield to retain possession better, which they haven’t done at major tournaments.

Re: Crouch / Heskey, I’m fairly happy with their, but I think Crouch is more mobile which might make him a slightly better bet. I appreciate what Heskey brings…but Crouch, I think, causes teams more problems. Especially the weaker ones, actually, which is where I’d be using the 4-4-2 shape, so I’d go for him.

MisoSoup on May 30, 2010 at 10:28 pm

I really like Roberticus’s plan B. And I agree with what he says about Crouch. As a Liverpool fan I was so sorry to see him leave – as were a lot of us. Heskey has been a great link-up player in his time but that time has gone.

Daryl on June 2, 2010 at 4:38 pm

I share your opinion regarding Heskey as without him, we turn into a ponderous outfit more reliant on breaking teams down, which isn’t out strong point. Heskey, despite his pathetic goal return, brings the best out of our two best players; Gerrard and Rooney, which Crouch does not. If Crouch were to be the big man ahead of Rooney then we would have to change the roles of players in the 4-2-3-1 as Crouch would need pacy wingers either side of him for him to be effective when we do go long.. which in itself would create a whole new set problems

kamikaze kontiki on May 30, 2010 at 6:39 pm

I only watched the last 10 mins of the game. England dont seem to have fixed their chronic problem of sitting back and conceding space when they lose possession. They either dont close down in midfield ahead of the defensive midfield or they allow a large gap between the defense and the defensive midfielders.

The left winger for Japan looked good.

L on May 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm

I also was disapointed to see no Johnson I hope he still goes to SA I would like to see how we would play with gerrard on the left and Johnson on the right both coming inside to allow our full backs to overlap and not restricting G Johnson. Leaving our most technically proficent winger at home in Adam Johnson would surely be a mistake. I would also have liked to see Walcott in a 4 3 3 or as a striker, I think that’s where he offers a lot more as he is a player to exploit the space behind defenders rather than a player who you can rely on to receive the ball in front of defenders and beat them with his pace. Huddlestone seemed a bit inhibited today and we didn’t see his usual passing range. Lastly a question with USA playing two solid more defensive CMs do you think that gerrard and lampard could be effective together in the centre in a 4 4 2? I think if you are to play with fast wingers offering geuine width I think there would be a big benefit to playing someone with gerrards long passing ability In the centre to allow the quick switch of play to isolate fullbacks 1 v 1 or exploit space in behind.

mcgie76 on May 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm

All tactical analysis aside, the value of these friendlies before a World Cup is simply one of keeping players match fit before the tournament starts. The mixing and matching is unimportant. Capello more or less has had his team in his head since England qualified. Same for probably 99% of the other managers as well.

The performance in this game, although perhaps cause for some small concern, is not so important as the opportunity it afforded the players to maintain match level fitness and also to get used to the new ball under competitive conditions.

Roberticus on May 30, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Right, and wouldn’t another appraisal of tournament of pre-tourmanent friendlies be that the result matters little, rather form and fitness are the main criteria. Also , to see whether there has been good interpretation of tactical instructions, synchronised movements etc.

Well done, I wondered what could possibly made of that drab affair this lunchtime. I would suppose on that performance Walcott will be staying at home? It has to be between Walcott and SWP for the final winger spot, Capello seems to favour Theo a lot more (something to do with SWPs dad perhaps? )

4-4-2 with Gerrard on the left is definitely England’s best formation, the team seems rather out of sorts at the moment. Passing and movement in the last couple of games hasn’t been as sharp as it should be but if they can pick this up in time for the knockout stages then they have the chance to carry momentum through to later stages.

I may be wrong but after all of the fuss about Carragher’s inclusion and the possibility of fielding 3 at the back. I can’t imagine he will pull a Carlos Bilardo style stunt and reveal a radical change in the first game against USA. Everyone has to wait until Tuesday now…

If the USA play a basic 4-4-2 like they did against Turkey, three at the back might actually work quite well…

RJF on May 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm

If anyone harbours realistic hopes of winning the competition they must have the ability to adjust formation and tactics. The USA, in the first half against Turkey, were struggling to get a grip in the centre of the pitch, Tuncay’s movement between forwards and midfield allowed him to influence much of Turkey’s attacking threat, and combined with some extraodinary defensive communication should have been 2 or 3 goals up at half time. Quite simply it was very easy to stretch the American defensive line with two wide players and a creative player in front of the midfield.

There is no reason England can’t play two wingers and move Gerrard into a more central role behind Rooney (on his own).

America looked quite dangerous with some quick one touch passing but this all went through the middle, if England were to play with 2 deep-ish midfielders much of this threat should be eliminated. If not I can easily imagine Altidore outwitting John Terry at least once, which may be all they need.

England will have to approach the Algeria differently where the threat of Crouch alongside Rooney will probably be too much, that would allow Gerrard to take on his “lop-sided left midfield” position in place of one winger who starts against USA.

Approaching both games in the same manner would suggest England have no plan B.

Vik on May 30, 2010 at 10:52 pm

I agree with this theory. The American fullbacks are poor, and are particularly susceptible to speedy wingers. By playing Rooney as a false nine with Gerrard behind, you avoid challenging the aerial ability of the centerbacks and force them to shift wide to cover for the fullbacks when they get beaten; the space this creates should be enough for Gerrard and a crashing Lampard to exploit. Does that mean Lampard and Carrick (assuming no Barry) are the two sitting deep centrally? Donovan and Dempsey both like to cut in, so jammming up the middle is the way to go, and any supporting fullbacks could be caught out on the counter. I suppose the US could field the speedy Findley up top, who did well to spread play against the Turks. If he could stretch the defense, it might open up space between the deep midfielders and defenders. That is partly what caused Turkey to breakdown in the second half, the rest of it was superior fitness. It would be interesting to see a hypothetical diagram of such a situation…

Seybold on May 31, 2010 at 2:49 am

I agree as well, getting the USA centerbacks out wide is the way to go, though given that they are both coming back form injury, their aerial ability looks suspect. Especially Onweyu, who was beaten badly in the air for a Czech goal in mid-week.

I’d hesitate to draw too many conclusions from the Turkey match, given how experimental the lineup was. The USA defends quite a bit better with Dempsey and Donovan wide, which we’ve seen in neither of this week’s matches. With Dempsey up top and a central midfielder on the left, the usual cohesion was absent. This was Plan A as far as formation, but not for the personnel.

Three in the middle, as discussed below, is also a useful strategy against the USA’s inflexible 4-4-2, as the minnows of CONCACAF know all too well.

RJF on May 31, 2010 at 7:45 am

I was very impressed with Findlays impact in the second half, he seemed to give USA a genuine wide threat.

Seybold, you may be correct with regards to the experimental line-up, and if Spector plays at right back I don’t expect him to be that poor again (to take this one step further I don’t expect ANYONE to be that poor throughout the tournament, this was certainly one for Spector to forget). However the problems regarding shape were all too apparent and a good team will exploit these deficiencies with ease, fortunately for USA; England aren’t a good team right now.

Completely agree that 3 at the back against a fairly standard 4-4-2 would be a great idea. England would need to rely on Glen Johnson and Ashley Cole remaining fit, no one else would be able to fill in sufficiently as wing-backs IMHO.

I guess the only question then is what system do you play in front of the 3 centre backs? 3-5-2 would be the simplest to adapt to, but 3-4-3 is the best choice against a defensive 4-4-2.

With a 3-4-3 you are covered at the back 3v2, the midfield is matched man to man and the opposition full backs are occupied because of the 3 attacking players. This would also give you the option of playing wingers and wing-backs. A. Cole and SWP/J.Cole on the left, and Johnson and Lennon on the right?

I agree with everything you say. 3-4-3 is preferable to 3-5-2 against a 4-4-2. But I don’t think we have the players for 3-4-3. So would play 3-5-2, play through the extra man in midfield (when the US played Turkey they couldn’t deal with the extra man in midfield between the lines) and instruct Rooney to move wide when out of possession, preventing one full-back from advancing.

But I doubt it will happen

Stug on May 31, 2010 at 12:52 am

Milner as a wing back? Could possibily play either side too

Roberticus on May 30, 2010 at 7:08 pm

Folks, I checked that Terry Butcher column that ZM referenced and what stood out for me was the following old canard:

“…Why’s Barry so important? He provides a base for the more attacking personnel in the England side to join the strikers or lone striker without having to worry too much about racing back to defend.

This is where England can utilise the talent of both Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard in a central role without having to play the Liverpool skipper in the ridiculous position on the left-hand side ”

For the love of God! Here we go again! If I have to see one more brainless ex-England pro railing against Gerrard “being shunted out to the left” I’ll completely abandon hope of English football ever progressing.

I appreciate that Butcher played in an era of straight-line running, but can he not appreciate that Gerrard, as ZM literally illustrated with his photos from the Mexico game, starts FROM the left but has complete freedom to move inside when England have the ball. FFS!

Zidane had to start from the left when playing for Madrid. Pires was a No.10 at Marseille but then started from a left-sided position for Arsenal and his game hardly suffered did it? Many of the top sides in history, to some degree, have been assymetrical. This is because assymetry is the wages of stretching and distorting the restraints of the system in order to facilitate the individual talent of certain players.

Yes, the column does rather go swiftly downhill after the reasonably intelligent assertion that Barry being fit for the first game shouldn’t dictate his place in or out of the squad.

Paul Parker wrote an ‘interesting’ column today:

“One player who will be missing the match in Graz is Gareth Barry. After the uneven display against Mexico on Monday many pointed to his absence as a major worry ahead of the tournament.

It’s true that he is employed to do a specific job in the midfield, and allow Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard to play their game, but I’m not convinced he would be missed all that much if his injury kept him out of the squad.

When England have played the top nations under Capello like Brazil, Spain and the Netherlands, they have been completely outpassed in midfield every time, which says to me that Barry isn’t able to break the game up enough against that calibre of opposition.”

So apparently we shouldn’t bother with a defensive midfielder at all!

Incidentally our goalkeepers aren’t that great either, let’s not bother with them…

L on May 30, 2010 at 8:19 pm

I think that Barrys importance to the team is just as much in his excellent passing and ability to keep the ball moving as for his defensive qualities. His passing is crucial in developing the play and we need someone in that area to provide the like of gerrard and rooney with the ball in advanced areas. His intelligence in possession is very important and I wouldn’t mind seeing carrick there against the USA. I think having Barry and carrick in the team allows a more effective transition and movement of the ball from defense into attacking areas and reduces the need for gerrard to drop develop our play which I think helps our shape in a attacking sense.

jonathan on May 31, 2010 at 12:46 am

I think Parker’s point is simply that Barry doesn’t do anything that can’t be easily replaced, and that he’s just not that good. He does most things pretty well, but he’s not nearly dynamic enough to play at the top level in a central pairing instead of a trio, especially if England face a class midfield like Spain, Brazil, Holland, etc. And if by chance Capello switches to a three man midfield at some point, Carrick, with his passing range, is a better option for that deeper position. Put Barry in front offset to the left and Lampard a little further forward offset to the right, Gerrard on the Lennon/Walcott on the right. It’s the only way England will have a chance against the tournament favorites.

Road on June 1, 2010 at 9:19 am

also, you guys have always said that Barry isn’t the destroyer. he never is.

He’s not naturally that kind of player, but certainly as close to one as England have.

Fedor on May 30, 2010 at 7:15 pm

Well all this tactical analysis will be useless when England get thrashed by the mighty Serbia 3-0 in the last 16, thanks to a Zigic hat-trick, all headers, showing Crouch how to be a proper target man, and not some lanky elephant on roller skates skidding around the pitch.

I’d rather watch a lanky elephant on roller skates skidding around the pitch, I reckon.

mcgie76 on May 30, 2010 at 8:40 pm

Isn’t that Peter Crouch? :D:D

Rahul on May 31, 2010 at 9:17 am

“lanky elephant on roller skates skidding around the pitch” ROFL

Fedor on May 31, 2010 at 12:20 am

NAHNAHANAHANAHNAH I CANT HEAR YOU!!!!!!

But in all seriousness that loss does not bother me one bit, I fully expect the Serb team to do badly in friendlies against weak opposition. That’s what we do. It’s in our genes it seems. We pull it out for high pressure games, but gives us a weak opponent and we get complacent and careless. Which is why having a tough group is better for us. I mean take this: Against the Faroes in qualifying, we only managed 2-0 home and away, that’s not too impressive. Yet, against other tougher teams in the group like Austria, we won 3-1 or so. When the crunch game came against Romania, we battered them 5-0. The game after was against Lithuania and seeing as we’d already qualified, we didn’t lift a finger and lost 2-1. That’s why the friendly result doesn’t bother me. We’re more likely to lose to rubbish teams when we have nothing to play for, rather than tough teams at crunch games. Which is why I think we’ll pull out results against Germany and if we meet them, England.

Filip on May 31, 2010 at 1:22 am

Dude, can you explain to me then, why we never play friendlies against
top sides, like ever? When was the last time we played Brazil, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland etc.?
I think Serbian team needs better opposition to train against instead of playing the likes of Algeria and China.
Is it always about money and politics?

Fedor on May 31, 2010 at 3:06 am

Maybe they’re afraid of us? I don’t know. Across all sports we’re known to give up when there’s nothing to play for, like in friendlies or when we’re at the top. The basketball team: Every time we become excellent at it, we start becoming average again. Tennis: Djoko, Ivano and Janko were all regulars at Grand Slam semi-finals/finals, now not so much. ‘Tis the Serb gene.

And actually it runs through all the Balkan teams. That’s way Croatia had such a good Euro 2008, yet fell apart WC qualifying, overconfidence essentially. All the ex-Yugoslavian teams are at their most dangerous when they’re underdogs, not front runners. So watch out for Slovenia as well, they could pull something.

Mani on May 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm

I agree that Barry is pivotal in England’s chances. Gerrard played very well on the left against Mexico I thought, drifting in to a more central role which also gave Cole a chance to overlap down the wing. Barry is also a left sided player so would fill the sort of hole when Gerrard drifts in when on the attack. Him playing in the side would also mean that Lampard can play in the middle as well and England can have a more stable central midfield. I don’t think England can rely on a Lampard/Gerrard partnership in the middle when they face the big teams. Neither of them are really disciplined when it comes to their positioning and movement.

What do you think Capello will do about the right side? Walcott tended to hug the touchline a lot in the warm up games which probably suits him more. However then there doesn’t leave much room for Johnson to exploit. What do you think about that guys?

Great analysis once again ZM, this is a great site!

Stug on May 30, 2010 at 9:24 pm

“Gerrard played very well on the left against Mexico I thought, drifting in to a more central role which also gave Cole a chance to overlap down the wing.”

Cole didn’t play in the Mexico game, Baines did. And in that game, yes, Gerrard did cut inside, but with the result that Baines had few options when in possession, he always has to look inside, which unfortunately led to him losing possession all too often

Mani on May 30, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Sorry I meant to say Baines, but in the World Cup it will be Cole though.

But by looking back inside won’t that draw a defender to the player he passes to, leaving another player open? And wouldn’t Heskey (although it was Crouch against Mexico) be roaming side to side offering a pass for Baines/Cole? Sorry if I sound stupid but I’m pretty new to the tactical side of things, although I find it really interesting.

Stug on May 30, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Not to worry, you don’t sound stupid at all, this is all (largely) opinion and conjecture anyway

Normally Gerrard moving inside leaves Cole space to run into (agree with you on that), but Baines, being less accomplished on the ball (as well as looking nervous), seemed rather short of options when looking for a pass, leading to him giving the ball away or choosing the wrong pass etc. I agree with you that Barry usually helps out in this respect, offering himself as an option on the left side

Mani on May 31, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Yeah I was going to add that Cole is much better on the ball than Baines as well. Thanks for answering those questions, very helpful .

MrSpang on May 30, 2010 at 8:49 pm

As I was watching, my main thought was ‘whats ZM going to think about this?’

Filip on May 31, 2010 at 1:25 am

Same here…
ZM, you dah man.

Hash on May 30, 2010 at 9:13 pm

Worth bearing in mind that Lennon missed more than half the season due to injury and is still not 100% match fit.

I am sure that Lennon will start on the right ahead of Walcott in the USA game though.

He is clearly the better player and most England fans will agree.

Stug on May 30, 2010 at 9:15 pm

“When England have played the top nations under Capello like Brazil, Spain and the Netherlands, they have been completely outpassed in midfield every time, which says to me that Barry isn’t able to break the game up enough against that calibre of opposition.”

So apparently we shouldn’t bother with a defensive midfielder at all!”

Be fair, that is NOT the point Parker is making. It seems to me that me is claiming that Barry is not the player to play the destructive role. I hardly think he is suggesting that “we shouldn’t bother with a defensive midfielder at all!”

For what its worth, I think Barry would not be in the team if Hargreaves were fit, Barry is clearly inferior to him in terms of “destructive” ability. He is lacking in terms of his positional sense & pace . It is not coincidental that Mancini has been playing the more defensively sound De Jong alongside him.

But he’s advocating playing Gerrard and Lampard in the middle together; neither are destructive midfielders, so surely he’s saying we shouldn’t play one?

Stug on May 31, 2010 at 12:34 am

Bah, sorry, I read the Parker quote in isolation, prior to reading his whole article (which I have just read). I rather jumped the gun there. I doff my cap etc

Yes, he does indeed advocate playing Lampard & Gerrard in the middle, which I would whole-heartedly disagree with.

kev on May 30, 2010 at 9:24 pm

i never thought i’d say this! but there’s a very strong case for jamie carragher playing right-back. this would work well for a number of reasons

1) while ashley cole will have a lot of space on the left side freed up by gerard/cole/milner cutting inside, there will be a traditional winger on the right hand side, which would block the path of glen johnson

2)johnson is also the weak point of england’s defence. japan knew this and targeted a lot of their play in the channel between johnsen and the centre-backs

3)having a right-back who doesn’t attack means that there will be less of a need for the midfielders to stay deep – this will help if lampard and gerard play together

4)when barry does come back into the team, it will be beautifully balanced. he will play more to the left of the two central midfielders and can cover ashley cole’s runs forward. lampard on the right hand side will be freed up by carragher and can go on and combine further up the field with gerard and rooney

5) when england have possesion they could change to a kind of 3-5-2 formation with carragher moving into the centre and rio ferdinand able to step up into the gap behind frank lampard.

so playing carragher would make england more defensively solid and provide a better attacking structure to the team, even though he’s not as good all-round player as johnson..

Sadly Carragher does seem to make sense at right-back; although having said that, in the group games we will hopefully dominate possession and Johnson would be more involved in the build-up play.

truthandinsight on May 31, 2010 at 12:40 am

kev, I think that’s spot-on what you’re saying about Carragher. It would be just like Chelsea this season, where Ivanovic (a Centre-Back) was playing as a very defensive Right-Back, allowing Ashley Cole to play more like a Wing-Back. It worked very well for Chelsea and it could work well for England too…….bet Capello doesn’t do it though…..

I’m very much unconvinced by Glen Johnsons ability both going forward and defensively – I think he’s a major mistake waiting to happen…….I still think Micah Richards was BRILLIANT as Englands Right-Back, but Capello hasn’t even looked at him once, so it shows how much I know…….

Stug on May 31, 2010 at 12:50 am

Good point re. chelsea’s full backs but Micah Richards, brilliant? Really?! And you say Glen Johnson is a major mistake waiting to happen….

truthandinsight on May 31, 2010 at 9:15 am

Yes, I do, on both counts……….and I’m right, dammit……..

Luke on May 30, 2010 at 9:30 pm

I’ll bet anyone five english pounds that Theo Walcott starts on the right instead of Lennon.

Stug on May 30, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Let’s hope not. Y’know, due to the fact that he can’t actually play football, an’ all

Fedor on May 31, 2010 at 1:11 am

I don’t understand why Joe Cole might be getting cut. The man may not be as fast as Lennon or Walcott but he is twice the player in every other area. On top of that Walcott, Lennon and SWP are all EXACTLY the same players, while Cole is a lot more intelligent and is able to play across most of the midfield. SWP is completely hopeless, and should be cut without a second thought. I think Walcott should be cut as well as he’s kinda rubbish, leaving Lennon and Cole, two different wingers, one a classic out-an-out winger, the other a more intelligent fluid player.

Stug on May 31, 2010 at 1:21 am

Agree totally on SWP, he’s never been a footballer. The problem for Joe Cole is that Capello’s system demands a pacey winger who will stay wide on the right, and he wants to play Gerrard left, so that leaves no room for Cole. Like you, I’d take him thogh, he’s a better player than Walcott/Lennon/SWP/

Fedor on May 31, 2010 at 3:12 am

Okay, in that England set-up yeah, I’d put an out-and-out winger. But Cole should be on the bench, purely for the added tactical flexibility he adds. Like I said, Lennon’s faster, but Joe’s a better passer, better shot, better touch, everything. And most importantly, (and in my view this goes for every footballer) he’s an intelligent player. Lennon isn’t. Intelligence is the separation between merely being good and being great. Admittedly Joe Cole is a good footballer, but he’s never going to be a great, but you catch my drift right? Intelligence is the difference between Maradona and a midget who can do every trick in the book. It’s the difference between Pele and someone who’s a good finisher. It’s the difference between Zidane and someone merely being an accurate passer.

England don’t really have outstanding wingers. The most creative attacker is Rooney, he can pass and push forward in this role and drop back when he is frustrated. Up top is a big man, fast man combination that have played together for years. On either side of the diamond is a midfielder who will have a clubmate full back behind him. That understanding should assist with overlaps or triangle possesion with the out and out defensive midfielder.

I have put Parker in that spot because England are weak on out and our defensive midfielders, as this site has acutely noted. England do have a few decent center backs though, so it would be really interesting to see if that role could be filled by a center back stepping forward or back into a three. Similar to the way Brazil are playing.

Like I said, it’ll never happen….. would be interesting though. I doubt there is a defensive line in the world that would be comfortable containing Defoe and Crouch on their shoulder and Rooney running at them.

Great site by the way

truthandinsight on May 31, 2010 at 9:29 am

I’m gonna go even further with that suggestion and say swap Ferdinand for Ledley King, and then swap Parker for Ferdinand……..I think Rio would make a World-Class Defensive Midfileder…….I reckon thats a pretty good team…..basically, Cole and Johnson would act as Wing-Backs providing the width, with Rio dropping back into defense to make a back three when needed…..I like it……Rooney would have a free role….we’d basically steamroller teams into submission…….obviously you couldn’t play that line-up every game cos Ledley can’t play in every game, but you could change him for Carragher when required………….depending on if you rate Carragher highly enough or not…….I have to say, I really rate Defoe as a player – I watched Liverpool vs Spurs at Anfield three years ago, and even though Liverpool ended up winning 3-0, Defoe really stood out to me as the best Tottenham player – his hold-up and link-up play was excellent, he was strong, quick and mobile, and he’s a good finisher (ok, he’s not the best finisher around, but he’s pretty good)……..

I must also say, that although I totally understand everyones non-plussness on Heskey in an England shirt, I think he’s got something about him that no other World player (seriously) has……he causes pandaemonium in the defense EVERY time the ball is near him, he ALWAYS wins the ball, either by holding it up or flicking it on……the ball just seems to stick when it goes up to him……when he moves across the ground he’s like a cross between a raging bull and a tank…….I think Crouch is a brilliant player, but there’s something about Heskey that no-one else seems to have…….

SweetLorettaMartin on May 31, 2010 at 1:27 pm

It wouldn’t surprise me if the rumoured 3-5-2 that was leaked is actually more like having one of the defenders pushed up into holding but sorta also acting as a libero and dropping back or right to form what’s effectively a 352 when fullbacks advance.

Depending on what the starting shape is, that would result in a virtual 3-4-3 / 3-3-1-3 when advanced and a 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 when static.

Completely agree about Rio stepping in as the Defensive Midfielder. Also I take your points about Heskey. I’d go with Crouch first though for three main reasons;

1. Although we know he is poor in the air, most teams will not, and defend accordingly.
2. He has played alongside Defoe for so long now, they do have an understanding.
3. Similar to Heskey he can hold the ball up well, mainly due to his tremendous wing span.

I’d not be shy about bringing on Heskey for him though. Or even moving Rooney into the Crouch role and letting Joe Cole play the “free” role.

(I think this should reply to you truthandinsight, not at the bottom of the page)

truthandinsight on May 31, 2010 at 5:33 pm

Thanks for your reply, Carolinapompey. Its funny, I also believe that Crouch has been quite poor in the air, but you don’t hear that very often from the “known” pubdits around the game, so thats something we have in common. However, I think Crouch has gotten a lot better in the air recently (against MAN CITY at the end of the season he was majestic in the air – Toure had no idea how to deal with him when the ball was in the air – he was winning it left, right and centre…..). I wasn’t necessarily saying Heskey should start ahead of Crouch, I was just making a case for Heskey as an England player……I would start Crouch and then bring Heskey on, as you suggest…….Ultimately our viewpoint isn’t going to matter much because I don’t think Capello is going to do any of what we’ve suggested……in fact, I don’t think ANYONE has a clue what team Capello is going to go with against USA……which makes it all very interesting and perhaps a little exciting…..

……do you think that Crouch’s “wing-span” as you’ve called it, would allow him to fly around the pitch? He’d become the ultimate “box-to-box” player if he could…….

truthandinsight on May 31, 2010 at 5:38 pm

…….oh, and I completely agree with Joe Cole in the “Number 10″ role – he’s World-Class in that position and I think he’s been mis-used his entire career at club and international level by not being used there enough……

By wingspan I was referring to how far out he can stretch a leg and control a ball played to his feet. As a Portsmouth fan I have seen a lot of Crouch (and a fair bit of Defoe). Crouch is better taking the ball to feet and holding it up. He can also flick a header forward, which was the most effective tactic alongside Defoe. Crouch is not a back post dominant header. he is not going to being powering headers back across the box.

He may be getting better, and I hope he is. I didn’t seen either of those games.

Oh and yeah, Joe Cole was born for the Number 10 role. I watched him once (when he was a kid at West Ham) control a ball that was in his own area by catching it on his forehead, and then running up the half way line with the ball on his forehead before passing to a teammate. Outrageous talent.

RAGS on June 4, 2010 at 5:48 am

I know I’m digressing here but there appears to be a lot of talk in the press that this England squad is the last one with any talent and that the cupboard is bare for the next WC when most if not all of Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, King, Carragher, Gerard, Lampard, Barry, Hargreaves and Joe Cole would have retired. Well here’s my shot at a possible 11in 4 years’ time, perhaps coached by a talented Englishman: -

————————Hart————————–

Johnson——Richards———-Smalling———–Gibbs

————-Milner————Rodwell—————-

Lennon—————–Wilshere—————-Johnson

———————–Rooney————————-

MM on June 8, 2010 at 9:31 pm

How England will play will hardly be surprising. Lampard and Gerrard in the centre until Barry comes back for the later games. However, this team has to attack more because its defense is definitely not as rock solid as previous England teams.